Feds to Big Auto: Spill It

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

The U.S. Commerce Department wants automakers to whisper in its ear. And by whisper, we mean fill out a 34-page questionnaire detailing all their secrets — the nitty gritty of product planning, suppliers, and finances not already disclosed in public filings — under threat of financial penalty or imprisonment.

As one would assume, this latest chapter in the Commerce Department’s investigation into the possibility that imported autos pose a national security threat to the U.S. isn’t going over well.

“The breadth and depth of this request is invasive, requiring massive amounts of proprietary and confidential business data from global operations — all under the pretense of national security,” Gloria Bergquist, spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, told Bloomberg. The Alliance represents several unnamed automakers who received the questionnaire.

“Frankly, it’s stunning from an administration committed to getting government out of the way of business,” Bergquist said.

The Trump administration kicked off the investigation to determine whether tariffs are needed on imported vehicles and parts. Automakers protested the threatened 25-percent tariff, claiming U.S. consumers would face steep price hikes in the wake of any new import levy. Even vehicles built in the U.S., like the Toyota Camry, stand to see a not-inconsequential MSRP boost.

Many see the threats as Trump’s way of forcing the European Union to back off its own 10 percent import tariffs on foreign autos.

To automakers that received the questionnaire, however, the more immediate issue is the discomfort that comes from spilling your secrets. From Bloomberg:

The Trump administration wants such things as how much each company’s research budget goes to specific areas such as autonomous driving, electric drive, connected vehicles, and lightweight technology. The questionnaire also seeks a list of suppliers for major vehicles systems and where they’re located.

The Trump administration also wants details about company business plans from now until 2020. One section of the questionnaire asked for plans for every global plant, requiring the companies to reveal whether the plants will be expanded, contracted, modernized, or closed. The administration also asked the companies for explanations about why they manufacture in foreign trade zones.

The survey also asks if imports hurt sales, profits or margins. And it directly asks, “How has import competition affected your U.S. manufacturing operations, sales, employment, planned expansions, investments, etc. with respect to the production of passenger cars, light trucks, SUVs and vans from 2013 to Q2 2018.”

Former Commerce Department chief economist Susan Helper said that, in the past, such questionnaires usually targeted the defence industry.

“I can see both sides on this — it is burdensome for companies, but on the other hand it’s important for policy makers to understand global supply chains as they have an increasing impact on the U.S. economy,” she said.

A hearing scheduled for this coming Thursday in Washington will see 45 industry representatives testify in front of the Commerce Department. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has until February to conclude the investigation and issue a recommendation to Trump.

[Image: Fiat Chrysler Automobiles]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 66 comments
  • APaGttH APaGttH on Jul 15, 2018

    Hey, be nice to each other in the comment section, keep it at least relevant and no dog whistle blowing. Now excuse me while I blow this dog whistle, sit back, and watch the comment section blow up. I almost miss Bertel at this point. Almost.

    • See 1 previous
    • Art Vandelay Art Vandelay on Jul 16, 2018

      @Maxb49 Well I believe Farago has sold off a couple of websites and now owns the sort of cars the rest of us schmucks argue about on here. And I wouldn't try to steal one given the subject matter of his last venture...He owns a lot of those as well.

  • Jeff S Jeff S on Jul 16, 2018

    Big Al--Ideally a Free Trade Agreement but if the US cannot reach one then at least have reciprocal tariffs. The US in the past has not negotiated Free Trade Agreements and has gotten the short end of the stick. I agree with Trump that these trade deals should be renegotiated but I don't agree with his approach. It would be better to have no tariffs across the board but that most likely will never happen. Each country wants to protect their market. In the case of China it is more than just free trade, it is the theft of technology. Denver Mike brings up a valid point about the technical barriers especially the EU countries have on vehicles.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next